I completely disagree with his views but admire his honesty. Much more of a man than Tim Farron was. Although of course, Farron's voting record was a lot more "gay-friendly" then Mogg's
We seem to live in a society where if you don't hold a progressive view you are quite simply a bad person and should keep quiet. He didn't say he wanted a law change, he was asked an opinion and he gave it.
I've never once been angry about an opinion someone has held, after all, it is an opinion and it is theirs.
Having said that, I think Rees-Mogg has probably alienated more people than he has endeared himself to with those comments.
I also believe it's a bit unfair (and this is where I have sympathy for Farron and Mogg alike) that Christians are put under so much pressure in comparison to other faiths. For example half of British Muslims believe homosexuality should be illegal (quoting a charltonlife friendly source here for you). the real guilty party here is religion and it's teachings, not Rees-Mogg in my opinion, and I think you would find many people across parliament engage in hypocrisy where they wouldn't give an honest answer when pushed.
I could vote for him. Unless reducing the status of gay partnerships and making abortion illegal was in his manifesto, which of course it wouldn't be. I don't think he will ever even stand for leadership of the conservatives though, I think he realises his personal views are a bit of a throwback to a thankfully bygone era.
Actually @Huskaris that was a fair post, which I agreed with a bit more than I expected to do at the start. But although half of British Muslims may or may not be opposed to homosexuality, they are not in a position to vote away the rights of those who like it. Rees Mogg is, and he is being trumpeted as a possible PM if yhe hatefull May gets a stab in the back. It's one thing to cling onto a bunch of outdated hate spreading views, but another is that the Prime Minister holds them. That begins to legitimise them.
I've seen it said on here that he's a national treasure
Really?? I don't normally read the political threads. Show me the person that writes his views and I'll point to that person and tell them I think they're talking crap.
I think Leuth said that with a heavy dose of irony @Curb_It.
I completely disagree with his views but admire his honesty. Much more of a man than Tim Farron was. Although of course, Farron's voting record was a lot more "gay-friendly" then Mogg's
We seem to live in a society where if you don't hold a progressive view you are quite simply a bad person and should keep quiet. He didn't say he wanted a law change, he was asked an opinion and he gave it.
I've never once been angry about an opinion someone has held, after all, it is an opinion and it is theirs.
Having said that, I think Rees-Mogg has probably alienated more people than he has endeared himself to with those comments.
I also believe it's a bit unfair (and this is where I have sympathy for Farron and Mogg alike) that Christians are put under so much pressure in comparison to other faiths. For example half of British Muslims believe homosexuality should be illegal (quoting a charltonlife friendly source here for you). the real guilty party here is religion and it's teachings, not Rees-Mogg in my opinion, and I think you would find many people across parliament engage in hypocrisy where they wouldn't give an honest answer when pushed.
I could vote for him. Unless reducing the status of gay partnerships and making abortion illegal was in his manifesto, which of course it wouldn't be. I don't think he will ever even stand for leadership of the conservatives though, I think he realises his personal views are a bit of a throwback to a thankfully bygone era.
Well he has destroyed any hope he had of becoming leader of his party. I do get your point about hypocricy but this is 2017. I have never had any desire to marry a man, but I would fight for other people's right to. It is clear equality is right and we shouldn't even be discussing it. I just don't feel comfortable that elected leaders hold these vile views, even if they are influenced by the church. Farron's record in terms of voting was positive, so I am likely to have more sympathy for him. But whilst everybody should be able to worship their religion, they should not allow that religion to take presedence over people's rights. Politics and religion should never mix - it is dangerous and I said that when Blair won power when people thought I should be pleased.
I've seen it said on here that he's a national treasure
Really?? I don't normally read the political threads. Show me the person that writes his views and I'll point to that person and tell them I think they're talking crap.
I think Leuth said that with a heavy dose of irony @Curb_It.
With 600+ MP's and a percetage of the population following to one degree or another religion there is bound to be a number of MP's who hold his view, maybe more than we think. It's simply a reflection of society.
I find some of his views abhorrent in some respects but at least he's honest as to what they are and why, I'd rather that than he lied - at least then you get what you see and can take a view with the facts.
I don't think he was ever PM material anyway and has consistently said he's not interested in that and I feel he is predominantly an honest person - a rare attribute it often seems these days!
I find it strange that people are so hard on Ken Livingstone over being anti-semetic when he claims he isn't and is instead anti-zionist and so willing to shrug their shoulders when an MP and somebody being touted as a potential leader of this country holds the views he does. I'm not supporting Livingstone here, but making the point that he is fighting the accusation, whilst Mogg openly admits his views.
I don't want people with these outdated views anywhere near power, and I condemn Muslims who hold that view also. There are enough Muslims in parliament of both parties that are pro-equality to show it is not a consequence of religion. TO show this is not a party political point - I will praise Cameron for the introduction of gay marriage. He fought for it despite opposition within his party because he knew it was right!
When asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain, 18% said they agreed compared to 5% among the public at large.
So from the very source it's less than a fifth and not half of the Muslim population, great headline though. Would be interesting to know what percentage of atheists believe it should be illegal.
However, when asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain, 18% said they agreed and 52% said they disagreed, compared with 5% among the public at large who disagreed. Almost half (47%) said they did not agree that it was acceptable for a gay person to become a teacher, compared with 14% of the general population.
Faking quotes is fun.... Did you think you were the only one who'd read the article?
I find it strange that people are so hard on Ken Livingstone over being anti-semetic when he claims he isn't and is instead anti-zionist and so willing to shrug their shoulders when an MP and somebody being touted as a potential leader of this country holds the views he does. I'm not supporting Livingstone here, but making the point that he is fighting the accusation, whilst Mogg openly admits his views.
I don't want people with these outdated views anywhere near power, and I condemn Muslims who hold that view also. There are enough Muslims in parliament of both parties that are pro-equality to show it is not a consequence of religion. TO show this is not a party political point - I will praise Cameron for the introduction of gay marriage. He fought for it despite opposition within his party because he knew it was right!
Isn't that the point of democracy and differing views. I suspect if you asked voters who strongly agree with Mogg's view they probably don't want people who don't hold those views anywhere near power! As always democracy will play out.
When asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain, 18% said they agreed compared to 5% among the public at large.
So from the very source it's less than a fifth and not half of the Muslim population, great headline though. Would be interesting to know what percentage of atheists believe it should be illegal.
I might be misunderstanding the quote, but are you saying 18% who voted agreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain or illegal? It reads as legal but I'm assuming it's illegal?
However, when asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain, 18% said they agreed and 52% said they disagreed, compared with 5% among the public at large who disagreed. Almost half (47%) said they did not agree that it was acceptable for a gay person to become a teacher, compared with 14% of the general population.
Faking quotes is fun.... Did you think you were the only one who'd read the article?
Thanks for clarifying, a worrying end at that piece, nearly half saying a gay person shouldn't become a teacher WTF! And 14% of the population as a whole........ that's surprised me.
Rees Mogg has stated his opinion and we know where we stand with him. There are plenty of flip flop politicians. Rees Mogg says he is excited by the exchange of political ideas and discussion of philosophies, his problem is when theory clashes with reality. On a policy level I believe his Brexit philosophy is at odds with practical reality and if called on to take action he would be in a dilemma, a practical dilemma he takes pains to avoid by staying with the theoretical. God forbid that his daughter is made pregnant by his son, but then he would have a massive dose of reality to deal with where his principles would be tested. Moral or religious philosophy is tested through the prism of actual life dilemmas.
However, when asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain, 18% said they agreed and 52% said they disagreed, compared with 5% among the public at large who disagreed. Almost half (47%) said they did not agree that it was acceptable for a gay person to become a teacher, compared with 14% of the general population.
Faking quotes is fun.... Did you think you were the only one who'd read the article?
Thanks for clarifying, a worrying end at that piece, nearly half saying a gay person shouldn't become a teacher WTF! And 14% of the population as a whole........ that's surprised me.
Just copied and pasted, without editing it to suit my own narrative.
Rees Mogg has stated his opinion and we know where we stand with him. There are plenty of flip flop politicians. Rees Mogg says he is excited by the exchange of political ideas and discussion of philosophies, his problem is when theory clashes with reality. On a policy level I believe his Brexit philosophy is at odds with practical reality and if called on to take action he would be in a dilemma, a practical dilemma he takes pains to avoid by staying with the theoretical. God forbid that his daughter is made pregnant by his son, but then he would have a massive dose of reality to deal with where his principles would be tested. Moral or religious philosophy is tested through the prism of actual life dilemmas.
I find it strange that people are so hard on Ken Livingstone over being anti-semetic when he claims he isn't and is instead anti-zionist and so willing to shrug their shoulders when an MP and somebody being touted as a potential leader of this country holds the views he does. I'm not supporting Livingstone here, but making the point that he is fighting the accusation, whilst Mogg openly admits his views.
I don't want people with these outdated views anywhere near power, and I condemn Muslims who hold that view also. There are enough Muslims in parliament of both parties that are pro-equality to show it is not a consequence of religion. TO show this is not a party political point - I will praise Cameron for the introduction of gay marriage. He fought for it despite opposition within his party because he knew it was right!
Isn't that the point of democracy and differing views. I suspect if you asked voters who strongly agree with Mogg's view they probably don't want people who don't hold those views anywhere near power! As always democracy will play out.
When asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain, 18% said they agreed compared to 5% among the public at large.
So from the very source it's less than a fifth and not half of the Muslim population, great headline though. Would be interesting to know what percentage of atheists believe it should be illegal.
I might be misunderstanding the quote, but are you saying 18% who voted agreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain or illegal? It reads as legal but I'm assuming it's illegal?
I think a view that opresses people has to be challenged no matter how many people support it. None of us have any right to judge or dictate to homosexual people what they can or can't do within the constarints that are placed on all people of course. Saying they can't get married when they love each other is opressive full stop. I haven't got the right to tell you you can't marry somebody you love and thank god for that!
Now when a member of the public holds such a view, it is our duty to educate them - but there is a difference betweenn members of teh public and politicians who are part of a mainstream party. Again, this is 2017 no 1817!!!!!
I find it strange that people are so hard on Ken Livingstone over being anti-semetic when he claims he isn't and is instead anti-zionist and so willing to shrug their shoulders when an MP and somebody being touted as a potential leader of this country holds the views he does. I'm not supporting Livingstone here, but making the point that he is fighting the accusation, whilst Mogg openly admits his views.
I don't want people with these outdated views anywhere near power, and I condemn Muslims who hold that view also. There are enough Muslims in parliament of both parties that are pro-equality to show it is not a consequence of religion. TO show this is not a party political point - I will praise Cameron for the introduction of gay marriage. He fought for it despite opposition within his party because he knew it was right!
Isn't that the point of democracy and differing views. I suspect if you asked voters who strongly agree with Mogg's view they probably don't want people who don't hold those views anywhere near power! As always democracy will play out.
When asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain, 18% said they agreed compared to 5% among the public at large.
So from the very source it's less than a fifth and not half of the Muslim population, great headline though. Would be interesting to know what percentage of atheists believe it should be illegal.
I might be misunderstanding the quote, but are you saying 18% who voted agreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain or illegal? It reads as legal but I'm assuming it's illegal?
I think a view that opresses people has to be challenged no matter how many people support it. None of us have any right to judge or dictate to homosexual people what they can or can't do within the constarints that are placed on all people of course. Saying they can't get married when they love each other is opressive full stop. I haven't got the right to tell you you can't marry somebody you love and thank god for that!
What gives you the right to tell people their religious beliefs are wrong? Surely that's being just as oppressive.
It is a vexing issue I admit. But we have to draw the line. So female circumsision has to be ilegal despite many muslims beliefing it is necessary as part if their faith. We shouldn't put them in prison for thinking it should happen, but we should for doing it and religion doesn't excuse it. So if people have anti gay views but don't do anything about them, I am not proposingg we round them up - try to educate them - yes but not do anything to them. But politicians have to meet certain standards, and if you believe homosexuals are not entitled to teh same rights as anybody else, it is the same as being racist in my books - unacceptable.
However, when asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain, 18% said they agreed and 52% said they disagreed, compared with 5% among the public at large who disagreed. Almost half (47%) said they did not agree that it was acceptable for a gay person to become a teacher, compared with 14% of the general population.
Faking quotes is fun.... Did you think you were the only one who'd read the article?
Thanks for clarifying, a worrying end at that piece, nearly half saying a gay person shouldn't become a teacher WTF! And 14% of the population as a whole........ that's surprised me.
Just copied and pasted, without editing it to suit my own narrative.
Er, headline is Half of all British Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal. 47% said they did not agree that it was acceptable for a gay person to become a teacher is not the same thing. It's not my narrative but the headline and the whole context of these posts, unless I've missed something about homosexual teachers?!
Go back, re-read the article, 52% said they DISAGREED that homosexuality should be legal, you know, the bit you removed from your quote as you retyped it.
It is a vexing issue I admit. But we have to draw the line. So female circumsision has to be ilegal despite many muslims beliefing it is necessary as part if their faith. We shouldn't put them in prison for thinking it should happen, but we should for doing it and religion doesn't excuse it. So if people have anti gay views but don't do anything about them, I am not proposingg we round them up - try to educate them - yes but not do anything to them. But politicians have to meet certain standards, and if you believe homosexuals are not entitled to teh same rights as anybody else, it is the same as being racist in my books - unacceptable.
The FGM is a different kettle of fish @MuttleyCAFC it is not exclusively Muslim as plenty of Christians do it too. It is more related to an area of Central Africa (and Egypt). It’s not common in Morocco or Algeria or Libya or Saudi Arabia or Oman or Jordan or Syria or Iran which are all Muslim countries in fact I am quite sure in the countries where it does happen it is not seen as being religious but cultural.
It is a vexing issue I admit. But we have to draw the line. So female circumsision has to be ilegal despite many muslims beliefing it is necessary as part if their faith. We shouldn't put them in prison for thinking it should happen, but we should for doing it and religion doesn't excuse it. So if people have anti gay views but don't do anything about them, I am not proposingg we round them up - try to educate them - yes but not do anything to them. But politicians have to meet certain standards, and if you believe homosexuals are not entitled to teh same rights as anybody else, it is the same as being racist in my books - unacceptable.
Seems you want to ban a lot of people from the democratic process, surely that is the whole point of democracy, if society generally follows your logic, people like Mogg would never get elected. Do we ban racists from standing for Parliament? I'm pretty sure we don't, I also hope we don't, when we start deciding who can and can't take part in our democratic process, its a slippery slope, let them stand, if their views are that abhorrent, they won't get voted in as an MP surely.
I don't think he's ever said anything illegal, like we should be stonings gays or anything along those lines, the bloke was asked a question and he answered honestly.
Like others, I think his beliefs are outdated nonsense, but I respect the fact he's honest about what he believes.
Go back, re-read the article, 52% said they DISAGREED that homosexuality should be legal, you know, the bit you removed from your quote as you retyped it.
Go back, re-read the article, 52% said they DISAGREED that homosexuality should be legal, you know, the bit you removed from your quote as you retyped it.
Bloody hell! Long week, I need to learn to read.
I offer 1 to 1 classes, I normally charge £30 an hour, but I'm sure we can figure something out.
I'm sure JRM comes off as a very straightforward bloke who gives his honest opinion when it suits him. Shall we ask him some slightly harder questions, maybe? About his corporate interests? His landlord status? Whether he honestly believed everything he told the public about Brexit? Giving your honest opinion about homosexuality may sound like a hard thing to do in the 21st century where you can't say anything these days, but actually his core constituency of bigots and wankers lap that shit up or at least handwave it off as 'personal opinion'. But what if it turns out he's a money-grabbing, poverty-exploiting lord of the fucking manor? What if it turns out he above all wants wealth and power, and fuck everyone else? Would he be a national treasure then? Pure self-interest is taboo, above common or garden bigotry. He can't show that hand or he's sunk. So he doesn't. But there are questions to ask. Questions that might show whether he is quite so straight-spoken as people are claiming.
I find it strange that people are so hard on Ken Livingstone over being anti-semetic when he claims he isn't and is instead anti-zionist and so willing to shrug their shoulders when an MP and somebody being touted as a potential leader of this country holds the views he does. I'm not supporting Livingstone here, but making the point that he is fighting the accusation, whilst Mogg openly admits his views.
I don't want people with these outdated views anywhere near power, and I condemn Muslims who hold that view also. There are enough Muslims in parliament of both parties that are pro-equality to show it is not a consequence of religion. TO show this is not a party political point - I will praise Cameron for the introduction of gay marriage. He fought for it despite opposition within his party because he knew it was right!
Isn't that the point of democracy and differing views. I suspect if you asked voters who strongly agree with Mogg's view they probably don't want people who don't hold those views anywhere near power! As always democracy will play out.
When asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain, 18% said they agreed compared to 5% among the public at large.
So from the very source it's less than a fifth and not half of the Muslim population, great headline though. Would be interesting to know what percentage of atheists believe it should be illegal.
I might be misunderstanding the quote, but are you saying 18% who voted agreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain or illegal? It reads as legal but I'm assuming it's illegal?
I think a view that opresses people has to be challenged no matter how many people support it. None of us have any right to judge or dictate to homosexual people what they can or can't do within the constarints that are placed on all people of course. Saying they can't get married when they love each other is opressive full stop. I haven't got the right to tell you you can't marry somebody you love and thank god for that!
What gives you the right to tell people their religious beliefs are wrong? Surely that's being just as oppressive.
It's not about telling anyone that they are wrong. It's establishing a progressive liberal society where people have the freedoms to do what they feel is best for them within the constraints of the rest of the population. Espousing inequality for whatever reason should always be challenged regardless of whether it comes from a religious doctrine or out of hate.
Comments
We seem to live in a society where if you don't hold a progressive view you are quite simply a bad person and should keep quiet. He didn't say he wanted a law change, he was asked an opinion and he gave it.
I've never once been angry about an opinion someone has held, after all, it is an opinion and it is theirs.
Having said that, I think Rees-Mogg has probably alienated more people than he has endeared himself to with those comments.
I also believe it's a bit unfair (and this is where I have sympathy for Farron and Mogg alike) that Christians are put under so much pressure in comparison to other faiths. For example half of British Muslims believe homosexuality should be illegal (quoting a charltonlife friendly source here for you). the real guilty party here is religion and it's teachings, not Rees-Mogg in my opinion, and I think you would find many people across parliament engage in hypocrisy where they wouldn't give an honest answer when pushed.
I could vote for him. Unless reducing the status of gay partnerships and making abortion illegal was in his manifesto, which of course it wouldn't be. I don't think he will ever even stand for leadership of the conservatives though, I think he realises his personal views are a bit of a throwback to a thankfully bygone era.
I find some of his views abhorrent in some respects but at least he's honest as to what they are and why, I'd rather that than he lied - at least then you get what you see and can take a view with the facts.
I don't think he was ever PM material anyway and has consistently said he's not interested in that and I feel he is predominantly an honest person - a rare attribute it often seems these days!
I don't want people with these outdated views anywhere near power, and I condemn Muslims who hold that view also. There are enough Muslims in parliament of both parties that are pro-equality to show it is not a consequence of religion. TO show this is not a party political point - I will praise Cameron for the introduction of gay marriage. He fought for it despite opposition within his party because he knew it was right!
Will read a bit more later. But fair post Huskaris. My rant was more aimed really at the hypocrisy of my father.
So from the very source it's less than a fifth and not half of the Muslim population, great headline though. Would be interesting to know what percentage of atheists believe it should be illegal.
Faking quotes is fun.... Did you think you were the only one who'd read the article?
There are plenty of flip flop politicians.
Rees Mogg says he is excited by the exchange of political ideas and discussion of philosophies, his problem is when theory clashes with reality. On a policy level I believe his Brexit philosophy is at odds with practical reality and if called on to take action he would be in a dilemma, a practical dilemma he takes pains to avoid by staying with the theoretical.
God forbid that his daughter is made pregnant by his son, but then he would have a massive dose of reality to deal with where his principles would be tested.
Moral or religious philosophy is tested through the prism of actual life dilemmas.
Now when a member of the public holds such a view, it is our duty to educate them - but there is a difference betweenn members of teh public and politicians who are part of a mainstream party. Again, this is 2017 no 1817!!!!!
I don't think he's ever said anything illegal, like we should be stonings gays or anything along those lines, the bloke was asked a question and he answered honestly.
Like others, I think his beliefs are outdated nonsense, but I respect the fact he's honest about what he believes.